3 ms·
And then you realize that, ironically, LLMs and archive.today, both actual bots, can scrape the site just fine. The latter also serving you the content with no
by m132 16d ago
And then you realize that, ironically, LLMs and archive.today, both actual bots, can scrape the site just fine. The latter also serving you the content with no paywalls, ads, JavaScript, permalinks that 404 after a year, and all the other anti-features. It's almost as if news websites looked at the pains one has to go through to legally play a video game in 2026 and all unanimously went "I want this!".
- gamblor956 16d agoAnd then a few years later when the site shuts down because nobody was willing to pay for the content that it would still be around if you and others had just ponied up the cost of one morning latte each month.
- m132 16d agoWell, sorry! Make the payment process and the website at least half as frictionless and private, and I'll be happy to pay!
- pavel_lishin 16d agoI mean, I don't even have the option to pay - I can't access the site at all. And there is nothing anyone can say to talk me out of adblockers - ad networks are a delivery system for malware and fraud.
- alyeska2 15d agoThe linked site shows me two subscription options, $289/year or $29 every 4 weeks. Expensive latte. The economics of online new seem challenging. Bloomberg is $399/year. Wall Street Journal is $715/year. NY Times is $390/year. Washington Post $140/year. That's a couple thousand dollars a year, just to have a handful of mainstream news sites. Add in local or regional sites, or content focused on hobbies, niche interests, etc and a person is looking at a huge chunk of their income (keep in mind median individual income in USA is $40k) going to reading the news.
- sphinxterai 15d agoThe economist can shut down and it will be a vast improvement to the world. Far left rag.
- zzleeper 15d agoFar left? Most economists consider it center-right, and it has been like that for more than 100 years.